Page 71 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381121171 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #701
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    It's frustrating to know that post is eight years old and therefore I could have read it a long time ago. Glad you linked it today.

    I still don't write in the margins most of the time. I know it helps me when I do.

  2. #702
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Eh, sometimes we try things. Sometimes they work, but it's okay if they don't. Or, as just recently said "sharpening my blade is a worthwhile pursuit."

    If you're following on the meta, my self-discussion of the meta is its own attempt at a new path. We'll see how it goes.
    you can't sharpen your blade bashing it against a brick wall.

    i used to think the intellectual battle bred the best ideas. now, [waving at the world around us] its pretty obvious that the intellectual battle doesn't help when meme's destroy your country.

    #lockherup
    #heremails
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #703
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I'm not bashing my blade against a brick wall. The entire conceit of making an emotional appeal is not to bash.

    Ceramics make fine knife sharpeners for the intelligent bladesmith. The trick is an oblique angle, and smooth application of pressure, again and again.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  4. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    I'm not bashing my blade against a brick wall. The entire conceit of making an emotional appeal is not to bash.

    Ceramics make fine knife sharpeners for the intelligent bladesmith. The trick is an oblique angle, and smooth application of pressure, again and again.
    i mean how many bullshit right wing memes do you need me to post showing its a brick wall? 5? 10? how many sean hannity openings pontificating about how the deep state and mueller are a coup against trump? how many headlines about the nunes memo do you need claiming things about the memo that weren't actually in it (the nunes memo confirming the FBI did everything exactly properly after all)? i can go all day. there is a difference between sharpening your knife, and being the bodies thrown at the machine gun nest. i used to have more of a stomach to be on the front lines, but don't argue that being the messenger of basic facts to those who don't grasp facts, is sharpening your own knife.

    arguing with josh over climate change for example, totally useless. he didn't present anything i didn't already know. and he didn't listen to a single thing that disagreed with his politics. having to explain to him the 9th grade level physics of why we know what we know, doesn't make you or i any smarter. and the fact he doesn't care doesn't make you or i any better at teaching it either.


    one thing that is fascinating to me, that since i switched over to an iphone i use a different news app than i used to. it shows 5 or so news stories from a variety of sources. fox news comes up most of the time. and its fascinating to watch what they decide there top story is compared to everyone else. a fascinating insight into the reality that fox news operates on.

    another fun one, i have a friend through cars who i argue over FB with pretty regularly. hes a "taxation is theft" libertarian. and at least on 4 different occasions, i've convinced him, and had him even agree ... that taxation cannot be theft because he is free to leave the country at any time, and live somewhere else if he wants to.

    and yet, every week, he posts another "taxation is theft" meme.

    it doesn't matter. even having him agree that taxation isn't theft, he will still pontificate about how taxation is theft.

    you can't argue with that. like josh and climate change ... show him a graph of the TSI being flat, and he will still argue the TSI has increased.

    you can't out-intellectual chops someone who isn't operating in an intellectual way.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 11:52 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #705
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    you can't out-intellectual chops someone who isn't operating in an intellectual way.
    Gordon, this is exactly what we're saying.

    I'm really loathe to stay in the conversation much more - I wasn't kidding about making my pitch and then ducking back out - but I want to make two quick points:

    1. Just because you don't feel like you're getting anywhere in discussions with Josh or him with you, doesn't mean that you aren't convincing the quiet observer to the conversation. I would argue my belief that Josh is actually winning the casual observer over to his side even though I disagree with his position and arguments. That said, it's probably like 52% Josh to 48% my position. It's a further reason I wanted to interact with the Meta to have a direct conversation in that space, and make new arguments in that space that can carry back into the "true" discussion.

    2. What you seem to acknowledge is the same feeling of frustration that I've communicated and I've seen Steve communicate in this thread. Convincing someone that is stuck in a position is hard. Josh would probably agree that convincing you of his position is really hard! You're saying in lots of different ways that certain things that would work for you - factual evidence for example - don't work on Josh or perhaps others. And I know you would jump in quickly to take a judgment position on what that means... but stop in this space for just a moment before you do. Yes, we can make judgments about people who don't seem to respond to an argument or to evidence in the way that we want them to. I think there is value in making that judgment at the right time. But I also want you to see in that moment that making the convincing appeal to Josh may exist and may require a different approach that you may be willing or unwilling to take. And once you see that is possible, you can decide to try to make that convincing appeal in the space where you can make it or continue your current position.

    Seriously, I'm not judging you for whichever you choose. I think we need both combatants and deal-makers in the thoughtspace. I just want my combatants and deal-makers to both understand their own value as well as the value that the other group is bringing to the conversation.

  6. #706
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Nuclear can't compete with natural gas in the market (far from a perfect market I'll add) right now hence why they are shutting the plants down left and right and begging state and federal agencies to give them regulatory incentives to keep them open
    If you are talking old nuclear that is 50 years old. Then yeah, you are correct. MSR and SMR tech comes in far cheaper. Half the cost, or lower in some cases. When used as a heat source, even less. A MSR is so cheap that it is cheaper to use MSR for steam generation to remove oil from oil sands than it is to use the oil that is there in the ground. It is cheaper than coal. The fuel can be waste, unused uranium from existing nuclear plants or Thorium, which is effectively free. The problem is updating old designs and permitting. And NIMBY.

    ____________________

    Since I'm not sure how Josh is going to take my claim that he's arguing from an authority position and my unstated posit that defeating his ego will be the key to "winning" an argument with him


    The only way to piss me off is to put words in my mouth or to make obviously bad conclusions from my statements and then try and Strawman me. That is really insulting. Beyond that, say I look like a frog, and it is a whole different set of rules. As such:

    I disagree with your interpretation of my positioning. IF I was arguing from the Authority Position, then I would just be making my statement, and saying you have to believe me because I am Me. The Authority. This would be like Gordon going "It is all The NRA's and Republicans fault and they don't want to do anything about it" and just leaving it at that. Not showing how, say, the NRA or GOP could have had any authority to stop the kid, or like, went to his house and bought him a gun, put it in his hands and drove him to the school. Or pulled the trigger for him. This is an illogical conclusion, and he provided no back up to support his position, and yet he still holds it sacred.

    (Small additional edit. The IPCC argues from a point of authority, but contradicts itself hard in the total body of it's work, from 1990 to 1995, then onward where it removed people who wrote in the first years. The models show more and more distance from observed outcomes, yet they claim a higher consensus. That there is a consensus is a joke in and of itself. There is a point where the flaws are obvious, a one loses trust in the machine of the IPCC. I am not the first, or an outlier. I am not radical or some fringe 3%. I feel the science as done is very premature and alarmist and based of preliminary data. In 15 years my position has held out. Where as the Al Gore set has been proven wrong every time. These is a point where evidence has piled up enough that something can not be taken as truth any more. Like the Government Food Pyramid. While we are not there as a culture yet on the Climate Subject, I believe it will fall in much the same matter.)

    I do the opposite. I provide 'large amount of links' reply, which basically says, DON'T take MY word for it, here is the data. Totally the opposite. Which again, seems to piss people off because it counters a position they have and created cognitive dissonance. Which really isn't a proper way to win an argument either. Which is why I trying to revert back to a 'Tell me why you think that' proper discussion format, which as we can see, has better results.

    _________________________

    Case in point, Josh has just put down the statement that GPS Fusion was wiretapping US citizens. I can pretty much guarantee that will be argued against by people reading more mainstream news sources.
    Like normal, I backup my statements with supporting commentary. In good part to check myself. Fusion GPS was a subcontractor for the FBI, and ran inquires about Trump and related under them because of the dossier. Lots of stuff that should have been disclosed wasn't, and Comey and others signed off on it. Some of this involved the wiretapping of Trump's associate Carter Page. Just scroll to page 4, #1 if you want to get to the meat of it:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3705...ses#from_embed'

    And FusionGPS also hired Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr to run the Trump investigation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...obe-trump.html
    http://truthfeednews.com/whoops-thin...oj-fisa-court/

    During this same time period, Ohr?s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife?s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs? relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
    This really shouldn't be a hidden issue, or just found on Fox news or by some contrarian on the internet. Why isn't this far worse than Watergate to the newspapers? Why are you guys jumping on my case about something that is so obvious. This isn't really a contrarian issue, nor should it be. I am not saying the world is flat, that we didn't land on the moon, chapstick has secret fibers to cut your lips open, or blaming 'the other side' (okay, I do a good job with some bad Whataboutism) for the actions of an individual.

    ________________________________

    I showed a few dozen areas where TSI and temperature followed each other. Your cognitive dissonance keeps you from seeing it.That would make you the true believer. Remember, PMOD TSI? Your baseline? The MOD in PMOD is for modeled, not observed. Want some from 2018? Fresh off the peer review presses?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...024-018-1791-3

    The major harmonics centred at ~ 63 ? 5, 22 ? 2, and 10 ? 1 years are similar to solar periodicities and hence may represent solar forcing, while the components peaking at around 7.6, 6.3, 5.2, 4.7, and 4.2 years apparently falls in the frequency bands of El-Nino-Southern Oscillations linked to the oceanic internal processes. Our analyses also suggest evidence for the amplitude modulation of ~ 9?11 and ~ 21?22 year solar cycles, respectively, by 104 and 163 years in northern and southern hemispheric SST data. The absence of the above periodic oscillations in CO2 fails to suggest its role on observed inter-hemispheric SST difference. The cross-plot analysis also revealed strong influence of solar activity on linear trend of NH- and SH-SST in addition to small contribution from CO2. Our study concludes that (1) the long-term trends in northern and southern hemispheric SST variability show considerable synchronicity with cyclic warming and cooling phases and (2) the difference in cyclic forcing and non-linear modulations stemming from solar variability as a possible source of hemispheric SST differences.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...16793217060147

    The possible contribution of solar and geomagnetic activity to changes in the characteristics of the main components of the climatic system?the ocean and the atmosphere?is considered and discussed. The mechanisms and models of the solar activity impact on thermobaric and climatic characteristics of the troposphere are presented. Based on a complex analysis of hydrometeorological data, it has been shown that changes in the temperature of the troposphere and the World Ocean reflect a response both to individual helio-geophysical perturbations and to long-term changes (1854?2015) of solar and geomagnetic activity. It is established that the climatic response to the influence of solar and geomagnetic activity is characterized by considerable spatio-temporal heterogeneity, is of a regional nature, and depends on the general circulation of the atmosphere. The largest contribution of solar activity to the global climate changes was observed in the period 1910?1943.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_and_Theoreti

    We present a new set of solar radiation forcing that now incorporated not only the gravitational perturbation of the Sun-Earth-Moon geometrical orbits but also the intrinsic solar magnetic modulation of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). This new dataset, covering the past 2000 years as well as a forward projection for about 100 years based on recent result by Velasco-Herrera et al. (2015), should provide a realistic basis to examine and evaluate the role of external solar forcing on Earth climate on decadal, multidecadal to multicentennial timescales. A second goal of this paper is to propose both in-situ insolation forcing variable and the latitudinal insolation gradients (LIG) as two key metrics that are subjected to a deterministic modulation by lunar nodal cycle which are often confused with tidal forcing impacts as assumed and interpreted in previous studies of instrumental and paleoclimatic records. Our new results and datasets are made publicly available for all at PANGAEA site.

    Lunar Fingerprints in the Modulated Incoming Solar Radiation: In-situ Insolation and Latitudinal Insolation Gradients as Two Important Interpretative Metrics for Paleoclimatic Data Records and Theoretical Climate Modelling (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_and_Theoreti [accessed Mar 07 2018].


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682617304480

    The response of the dynamic and thermodynamic structure of the stratosphere to the solar cycle in the boreal winter is investigated based on measurements of the solar cycle by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor onboard the SORCE satellite, monthly ERA-Interim Reanalysis data from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the radiative transfer scheme of the Beijing Climate Center (BCC-RAD) and a multiple linear regression model. The results show that during periods of strong solar activity, the solar shortwave heating anomaly from the climatology in the tropical upper stratosphere triggers a local warm anomaly and strong westerly winds in mid-latitudes, which strengthens the upward propagation of planetary wave 1 but prevents that of wave 2. The enhanced westerly jet makes a slight adjustment to the propagation path of wave 1, but prevents wave 2 from propagating upward, decreases the dissipation of wave 2 in the extratropical upper stratosphere and hence weakens the Brewer?Dobson circulation. The adiabatic heating term in relation to the Brewer-Dobson circulation shows anomalous warming in the tropical lower stratosphere and anomalous cooling in the mid-latitude upper stratosphere.
    Gordon, I can do this all day. I have hundreds of peer reviewed documents that show a response to a change in solar input and how it affects climate. Since the discussion is about 'Authority' in the argument, maybe you should try and back up your positions. You have shown little to no supporting evidence as to why we should abandon my position that Solar Output affects, yet only parrot yourself as if we should just believe you because of You.

    And since I am in a question asking mood - since I can provide hundreds of links to peer reviewed studies that show a variance in climate in step with changes to solar output, and have brought up over a dozen in the past on this page, and Gordon has not, does any of you still believe that TSI is flat and has no affect on climate?

    Can you say, in the face of hard evidence and a rather decent stack of studies, that Gordon is correct or incorrect? Do you think he has provided enough evidence to back up his position, and that I should believe his position over mine?

    I hazard he has done nothing of the sort.

    I do respond to evidence. But I do NOT respond to a call of authority. I am a contrarian by nature, but for the most part I am also strongly evidenced based. I have hundreds of studies that work with my position.

    What have you in reply?
    Last edited by pbjosh; 03-07-2018 at 01:13 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #707
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    factual evidence for example - don't work on Josh
    It does. Like Gordon's TSI comments, or blaming the NRA, he doesn't bring anything more than opinion. That is why I bring evidence to support my position. I even showed Uranus responding to a solar cycle. And still he claims that it is flat.

    Bring me facts. As Steve and Ryan have seen, if I get the facts wrong, sometimes in self discovery, I change my position. I do it a lot.

    The problem is Gordon doesn't bring it.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 03-07-2018 at 01:11 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #708
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    So when I talk about arguing from an authoritarian position, I mean that Josh sees himself as the arbitrator of how evidence fits into the puzzle, how much it contributes, and whether it is ignored or subverted by other information. And you can look a few posts up from this and see it in action. So to convince Josh of your argument, you're going to have to convince him that how he weights and interprets facts as a process is wrong, not that any one fact or paper is right/wrong. But I'm now not entirely sure that even Josh sees that in himself.

    But I apologize for the confusion, because I was not in any way meaning to say that Josh takes his opinion over other people's facts.

  9. #709
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    It does. Like Gordon's TSI comments, or blaming the NRA, he doesn't bring anything more than opinion. That is why I bring evidence to support my position. I even showed Uranus responding to a solar cycle. And still he claims that it is flat.

    Bring me facts. As Steve and Ryan have seen, if I get the facts wrong, sometimes in self discovery, I change my position. I do it a lot.

    The problem is Gordon doesn't bring it.
    the TSI is a fact. the NRA's actions are facts. they are not matters of opinion.

    thank you for proving my point better than i ever have.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #710
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    i mean how many bullshit right wing memes do you need me to post showing its a brick wall?
    Considering my point was about how brick walls can be useful, zero. I am not under the illusion I'm going to 'save' Josh, nor am I interesting in creating an intellectual monoculture in the first place. I want to hear his arguments in order to best hone my own.

    At some point I will be able to deploy the refined argument when talking to someone without an entrenched position. It's obvious from the fact that both parties win elections despite being mostly comprised of entrenched bases that swing voters do exist, or voter enthusiasm/turnout is affected by exogenous political factors. It's clear from the latest presidential result that your style of "debating" is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive:

    https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/114513...can-liberalism

    I can't tell you how often in this thread I've had preferred you say nothing at all compared to the blunt invective you favor. And crucially, I almost never think you're wrong prima facie. The facts aren't enough, or we wouldn't be where we are politically, where a vast swath of Americans voted against their own economic interest. Economics has had a kind of postmodern period in which the rational actor model is discarded - I'd be sure that you're trapped in the mindset that facts are enough when empiricism clearly contradicts this position.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •